Performance and acceptability of the Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire in a chronic pain population: a mixed-methods study.

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Lene Therese Bergerud Linnemørken, Helle Stangeland, Silje Endresen Reme, Synne Øien Stensland
{"title":"Performance and acceptability of the Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire in a chronic pain population: a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Lene Therese Bergerud Linnemørken,&nbsp;Helle Stangeland,&nbsp;Silje Endresen Reme,&nbsp;Synne Øien Stensland","doi":"10.1097/PR9.0000000000001072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pain-related fear, anxiety, and avoidance may play key roles in the chronification of pain and related disability. For practitioners, knowledge about the source or drivers of these fears, including patients' exposure to potentially traumatic events (PTEs) and related posttraumatic stress symptoms, could be particularly helpful in guiding their treatment approach.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to investigate whether the use of a brief screening for PTEs could help inform chronic pain treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The performance and acceptability of the Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire (SLESQ) was assessed among 567 adult patients (59% women, mean age 48.1 years) meeting at a hospital outpatient pain clinic. The sensitivity, specificity, and 20 months temporal stability of the SLESQ, assessing exposure to 14 specific trauma types followed by a 15th item capturing exposure to \"other events,\" were assessed through digital administration and follow-up interviews with 55 participants. The qualitative responses of 158 participants reporting exposure to \"other events\" were reviewed and assessed based on fulfillment of the A Criterion for traumatic events in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. The acceptability of the SLESQ was assessed in clinical interviews with 12 participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SLESQ demonstrated acceptable sensitivity (70.0%), high specificity (94.9%), and moderate temporal stability (κ = 0.66, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Participants' qualitative elaborations of \"other events\" were largely (76.3%) consistent with Criterion A events. The screening was well accepted and welcomed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results indicate that the use of a brief screening for potential trauma may be helpful to guide clinical practice in chronic pain settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":52189,"journal":{"name":"Pain Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10129107/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pain-related fear, anxiety, and avoidance may play key roles in the chronification of pain and related disability. For practitioners, knowledge about the source or drivers of these fears, including patients' exposure to potentially traumatic events (PTEs) and related posttraumatic stress symptoms, could be particularly helpful in guiding their treatment approach.

Objectives: We aimed to investigate whether the use of a brief screening for PTEs could help inform chronic pain treatment.

Methods: The performance and acceptability of the Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire (SLESQ) was assessed among 567 adult patients (59% women, mean age 48.1 years) meeting at a hospital outpatient pain clinic. The sensitivity, specificity, and 20 months temporal stability of the SLESQ, assessing exposure to 14 specific trauma types followed by a 15th item capturing exposure to "other events," were assessed through digital administration and follow-up interviews with 55 participants. The qualitative responses of 158 participants reporting exposure to "other events" were reviewed and assessed based on fulfillment of the A Criterion for traumatic events in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. The acceptability of the SLESQ was assessed in clinical interviews with 12 participants.

Results: The SLESQ demonstrated acceptable sensitivity (70.0%), high specificity (94.9%), and moderate temporal stability (κ = 0.66, P < 0.001). Participants' qualitative elaborations of "other events" were largely (76.3%) consistent with Criterion A events. The screening was well accepted and welcomed.

Conclusion: The results indicate that the use of a brief screening for potential trauma may be helpful to guide clinical practice in chronic pain settings.

Abstract Image

慢性疼痛人群压力生活事件筛选问卷的表现和可接受性:一项混合方法研究。
与疼痛相关的恐惧、焦虑和回避可能在疼痛和相关残疾的慢性化中起关键作用。对于从业者来说,了解这些恐惧的来源或驱动因素,包括患者对潜在创伤性事件(pte)的暴露和相关的创伤后应激症状,可能对指导他们的治疗方法特别有帮助。目的:我们的目的是调查使用pte的简短筛查是否有助于告知慢性疼痛的治疗。方法:对某医院疼痛门诊就诊的567例成年患者(女性59%,平均年龄48.1岁)进行应激性生活事件筛查问卷(SLESQ)的评分和可接受性评估。通过数字管理和对55名参与者的随访访谈,评估了SLESQ的敏感性、特异性和20个月的时间稳定性,评估了14种特定创伤类型的暴露,随后是第15项捕捉“其他事件”暴露的项目。根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版中创伤性事件A标准的实现情况,对158名报告“其他事件”暴露的参与者的定性反应进行了审查和评估。在与12名参与者的临床访谈中评估了SLESQ的可接受性。结果:SLESQ具有可接受的灵敏度(70.0%)、高特异性(94.9%)和中等时间稳定性(κ = 0.66, P < 0.001)。参与者对“其他事件”的定性描述大部分(76.3%)与标准A事件一致。放映得到了很好的接受和欢迎。结论:结果表明,使用简短的筛选潜在的创伤可能有助于指导临床实践的慢性疼痛设置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Reports
Pain Reports Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信